Robo,
I like what you and Scotty have come up with. It reminds me of EDT with a slight power twist. So, it's what I tried yesterday in the gym. Limit time, reps, and rest to maximize power. Go hard with moderate weight, keep reps fast; keep effort at a maximum, or near maximum.

I did this with SGDL's at a moderate weight to avoid injury, and paired it with db push presses (single arm). Did 3 reps of each per round. Limited rest to about 20-40 seconds between rounds. Got 11 rounds in 15 minutes.

Tried the same thing with pull ups and split squats, but got 12 rounds.

I think it's a pretty cool way to plow through a boat load of work but keep things short. Is it how you will develop a top tier Olifter or sprinter? Na, but it does shift things more towards the power side of things will allowing for some met-con type elements.

__________________
"Survival will be neither to the strongest of the species, nor to the most intelligent, but to those most adaptable to change."
C. Darwin

I think it's a pretty cool way to plow through a boat load of work but keep things short. Is it how you will develop a top tier Olifter or sprinter? Na, but it does shift things more towards the power side of things will allowing for some met-con type elements.

truth. density work is inherently power biased and somewhat self regulating

I've never done the alternating form of density training like Staley suggests but am currently trying out a bryce lane style progression for power clean/push press and squats. (ye olde 20/50) Love it. Haven't tested my max yet but I suspect I'll see some increase in my max on squat. Someone more advanced might not get the same reaction bump but I'll bet I get at least a 10 pound bump in my squat.

Tried the PB version of Helen today (400m, 2min, 21 swings, 2min, 12 pu, 2min for 3 rounds) and got nicely smoked without getting flattened. I loved this version, probably b/c I'm notoriously weak, and ended up slogging through OH (original helen), practically shuffling my way through the 400's. My biggest concern/hang up about the CF WOD''s was that in order for me to get a "powerful" workout I had to scale waaaaaay back on the weights in order to keep momentum going. The PB version allows me to keep the weights on the distant side of respectable. It's probably why I've enjoyed dabbling in Staley's EDT from time to time, where I can better manipulate weights and total reps.

I wanted to follow up on my previous post which was unavoidably cut short.

It seems to me that real world work (whether it be in the form of recreational sports like basketball or outdoor adventure like bowhunting or simple manual labor) typically has a very complex interval structure which is generated by a basic goal-subgoal psychological structure in conjunction with the complex behaviors required to achieve a given goal/subgoal. So, if my goal is to do X, I must typically do Y and Z. Y+Z together constitute a complex behavior which allows the individual to achieve the goal. Here is a simple example: When I collect firewood, my goal is to load the trailer with logs. Doing this generally requires that I do two things: first, carry the logs to the trailer and, second, lift/load the logs onto the trailer. I generally don't to this all at once, but rather carry a bunch of logs, then load a bunch. Iterating Y & Z constitutes one type of multi-modal interval, an interval which is inherent in the activity itself.

Now, consistent with the power bias picture, these intervals will typically come in macro-intervals. That is, it is pretty common to do a number of reps of Y, rest (optional), do a number of reps of Z, rest, repeat.

But finally, it seems to me that there is frequently (almost always) a kind of micro-interval structure to the subactions Y & Z. In the case of carrying logs it is built into the action itself: carry, walk back, carry, ... But even in the case of lifting logs, I almost never find myself lifting and loading all the logs I have piled up in one long stretch of work. Instead, I work in short bursts with subgoal of loading 4 or 5 logs, resting, loading 3 or 4 more, resting, etc. until the pile is gone and I can go back to carrying some more logs down.

If you think about a wide variety of actions, I think you will find that this pattern is pretty common. In fact, consider somebody who is just starting Crossfit and who is doing a power biased WOD. Since it is unlikely, that this person will be able to do unbroken sets for all or most of the actions they perform, they will naturally add micro-intervals into their work. As the person gets better, the micro-intervals will disappear. But I am not sure that this is a particularly desirable thing. Instead, at least from a functional point of view, a case can be made that the person should at this point (or perhaps prior to this point) up the weight they are using in order to force themselves to break up the sets again. [Actually, if you think of someone just starting Crossfit, they will probably come very close to naturally imposing the power-bias macro-intervals as well...]

OK, now for a bit of speculative theorizing. In the literature on evolutionary biology you will find lots of work on "optimal foraging theory" which basically looks at the way animals forage from the perspective of energy efficiency. I speculate that the three-tiered interval picture is pretty optimal in terms of amount of work done per unit time. I further suspect that this is reflected in our psychology: we naturally break complex actions up into their component parts and perform them serially, we get bored if perform the same action too redundantly, we naturally set micro-goals to achieve, etc.

Marc-
I've had something like this rattling in my head...almost an aversion to things like the standard 3 round couplet or triplet. "constantly varied if not randomized functional movements..." What you mentioned in your post takes this to another level. It is much like the JKD axiom of dispensing with the classical mess. We obviously want to (need to?) quantify and codify...but once we do, once fitness has become a sport...we are playing to a mechanized, non-organic and random construct...Amazingly insightful Marc.

__________________
"Survival will be neither to the strongest of the species, nor to the most intelligent, but to those most adaptable to change."
C. Darwin

Ron, CrossFit did an experiment with Fran probably 2 years ago. I recall doing a version of Fran at 5 sets of 9. At the time, my Fran was in the 7-8:00 range. I found that the 5x9 cranked up the metabolic demand because it decreased the rest time. Since I only had to get out 9 thrusters, I could straight set them as opposed to doing 12, resting, doing 5, resting, doing 4 to get to 21 (or however I broke it down) and then doing the same with pullups.

I remember doing that. I hated the 45 straight through (took me like a day or so) and didn't fare well with the 3x15.
Would be willing to do the 5x9, but I think the 9x5 would be a little more powerful.

The 9X5 isn't much fun, but the switch time between exercises does give you something of a break. It's easier to load this version up, though. We recently did this with 135 lb thrusters and tucked front lever pullups.